I didn't say Hollywood was Republican. I said Republicans are Hollywood - or, rather, just as Hollywood as are Democrats.
FWIW, Reagan wasn't run out of Hollywood for "his stand against Communism". He was ignored because he turned his tiny, low-talent acting career into presiding over the Screen Actor's Guild, which he promptly turned against in favor of the hateful Hollywood Blacklist, which was part of the McCarthy witchhunts that were some of the worst demonstration of political abuse in the country's history.
You want to argue about logical fallacies, start by leaving out the ones you are creating as straw man fallacies you'd prefer to argue instead of the truth I'm handing you.
And then maybe we can talk about how Hollywood is run not by actors, but by rich studio corporations and their executives. It's the Republican Party that's run by actors.
You are correct. For example, what is the value of Fred Thompson's regular appearances on his TV show? What is the value of, say, Fox News covering Harry Reid favorably for a change when reporting this story that benefits both Fox's bottom line and its political power?
The real issue is equal access by everyone with the interest and competence to both consuming and publishing news stories. That's the most essential role of the Internet. It's one reason I was so encouraged by last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic debates. That event will probably be seen later as a watershed in legitimizing the Internet as a mass medium in the critical path of politics.
And of course that chance for greater freedom is in some conflict with Hollywood's requirements of Reid and his majority Democrats (and of Republicans, when they had the majority). The unfettered use of content in online political presentations and discussions will make politics easier to access, more in the language of the people. But unfettering that content makes Hollywood mad, because they want to charge for it - regardless of our rights to its fair use, traditions of use, necessity of its free flow in our new political media.
This problem is one where the people are in direct conflict with the politicians, and the "Fourth Estate" of the government that is the media. We will have to work carefully, long and hard to make sure we capitalize on at least some of its promise, or we'll be even less free than before.
Reid is getting plenty of money from "Hollywood", as is the rest of the Democratic Party. And this policy is clearly bought and paid for by the content industry.
But is Hollywood "Democrats' biggest cash machine"? No. It's not the biggest source of money to the Democratic Party. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that Republican talking point, before it's promoted on the Slashdot front page.
And are Democrats really the "Hollywood Party"? Schwarzenegger, governor of California, is a Republican - and all Hollywood. Fred Thompson, a favorite of Republicans to run for president next year, is a Republican, a popular TV actor, and all Hollywood. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the Republican Party, was nothing but Hollywood, after his career as B actor, culminating in roles as California governor, then US president. And of course Hollywood, the ultimate corporate media cash machine, prefers the Republican Party, which represents precisely Hollywood's values: corporate media, rich people, marketing appearance over substance, popularity contests determining power, the lot.
Hollywood is America. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are America. Pretending only Democrats are Hollywood, while Republicans are their real blockbusters, is not really "the American Way". It's the Republican Way. But it's just a made up story, projected on screens across America and the world.
TWC gives fairly cheap/fast cablemodems to some people here in NYC. Like $50:mo for 1Mbps/600Kbps up/down. Not bad, for the US.
But their DNS really sucks. Every connection to the Net requires a slow DNS lookup. And several times a week, sometimes several times a day, DNS goes down, or really slow (>60s per lookup). These botnets aren't the culprit. It's a lame IT staff.
$50:mo is a lot, on top of an additional $50:mo TV charge, plus what they get for "triple play" including phone service. And of course pay-per-view. In a city of 8M people, the large majority of whom subscribe, with really low per-dwelling costs because we're all living in such a small area with complete infrastructure. Oh, and they're a monopoly in a captive market at the center of the global media market.
TWC should pay another $10M more a year to keep their DNS running like a greased snake. Including cleaning up the botnets that attack them, without making such a big deal about a minority of their problem.
I've used a GCC that IBM souped up to generate Cell PPC/SPE/scheduler binaries. I thought the BSC compiler was different, not GCC, but maybe I got them reversed.
I want to see whether the Cell GCC is in the main GCC product, benefiting from the other revisions. And whether its Cell code is being optimized properly for the Cell in new generations, from the same source code (that would work on Cell) that GCC can compile to other targets (if it would work on them), like GCC does for the other targets (and languages). I want to see if "Cell GCC" is evolving along with the rest of GCC.
But you are correct that the GPL allows me to merge other Cell compilers (like the Cell GCC I used) into a "GCC-4.2.1.Cell" that I make and distribute myself. That answer is in fact more on topic to this story than my question.
Does GCC 4.2.1 generate binaries for the Cell uP? Does it have a way to generate the separate PPC/SPE code to run parallel DSPs with the builtin scheduler? Optimized for the Cell? From the same source code that could run on just the PPC (eg. recompile Linux/PPC OpenGL to Cell for SPE rendering)?
And also in 2008, Microsoft sees the "database filesystem", and "perfect speech recognition"! Am I glad 2007 is over, with its gloomy forecasts that Microsoft would just lie about vaporware to keep people buying its increasingly shabby and prematurely obsolete product rehashes.
Wait, it's just a bug in my Windows taskbar calendar?
You didn't hear it from me, either. What you heard from me is that expanding the H1Bs in this country lowers the overall market rate for engineers from which Google hires.
Google is rapidly becoming better at talking a good geek game than actually playing it. Your logical fallacies in responding to my posts have all been self serving. Since American business is built on those priorities, I expect Google will continue to succeed. Best of luck.
No, I got your "point", but you still don't get mine. The PhDs I mentioned have nothing to do with H1Bs, nor did I say they did. I just reeled off a (short) list of how Google is built on all kinds of American investments, including PhDs (whether to foreigners or natives).
The evidence I have that H1Bs cost less than Americans was already stated. I'm certainly not going to bother explaining the obvious reasons why Google would want cheap foreigners to work here rather than overseas, if you can't see that yourself, and you can't catch on to the other logic I so clearly and repeatedly explained in this thread. And if you're going to split "hares" about whether a H1B goes home for 3 weeks a year, or 8 months every 3 years, or invests in buying a home in their cheap foreign country with money they extract from the US while living in a dorm, then you're welcome to the extra competition.
I'm going to end this increasingly repetitive discussion that's doing nothing for me except repeatedly demonstrate how I'm right, and you're offering nothing but logical fallacies. Goodbye.
I guess you missed the part in my post where I said exactly that.
Or the part where I linked to how the prosecutor was fired and disbarred (though it looks like the CNN article to which I linked is now broken).
Anonymous illiterate Coward can't even think straight when they agree with me. Maybe something's jamming the plate in their head, like fevered lust to join the Duke lacrosse team, though they're wedged between a gamer's chair and their keyboard, tied by a gamer's catheter to their mom's basement.
Everyone knows that Duke's got problems with open access. It's the access point's fault, not the new units that play a little rough with seasoned pros.
Though the expert officials blaming the wrong party should find a new line of work. I suggest politics.
The reality is that Google is lobbying Congress, which increases the pool of H1Bs in the labor market from which Google hires many workers. So your individual anecdotal experience (from what, 0.0001% of Silicon Valley corporations?) is meaningless, because it's after the preconditioning of the market.
Besides, with the logic you're strutting in these posts, anyone hiring you isn't looking for the "world's best" applicant.
You really are talking out of your ass. I have hired tech people for over 15 years to work on my projects, in the US and in Canada. There are plenty of US CS graduates and others qualified. There are plenty of them un/underemployed. There are plenty of qualified foreigners, too, and they generally work cheaper. In Canada, which produces far less CS grads, there was no greater need to hire foreigners.
To complete the worthlessness of your obnoxious post, you get exactly wrong my point about PhDs. I never said anything about foreign PhDs. I said PhDs, by default Americans, whose education represents significant public (American) investment. Google's PhD labor cost is subsidized by that American investment. You don't even bother arguing with the point I made that you evidently read right, though you strawman it into some irrelevancy about "foreign PhDs": that Google is indeed saving money by hiring H1Bs, though again, I never said foreign PhDs.
You are the one who is just echoing back the headlines at Slashdot and other oversimplified "news" outlets. There are in fact so many qualified American developers that there are too many without enough work to do here.
You are the one who is laughable. What country are you from? Because it's clear that country didn't get its money's worth educating you. I pity the fool who hires you to use skills like you've flopped around in that post. Though I do relish competing with them.
I'm sure that saving "a few $$" on labor is a concern, because that's exactly what we're discussing in this story: Google blames their labor costs for their low profit.
Where do your stats come from?
Europe isn't a good example for managing all immigration, but it's a pretty good example of how to manage labor markets. You'll probably whip out some stats that compare their unemployment rate of 20% to America's rate of 5%, but America's rate is completely fictional, to make the government look good and ignore millions of un/underemployed. The actual "labor participation rate" in America is something like 100M out of 200M "employables" (not too young/old/ill), or really 50% unemployed - probably about the same as Europe, if not more (especially if counting the military). Plus more Americans are underemployed or working shitty jobs not exploiting their actual labor potential.
Google is using their demand for "world's best" applicants to get more H1Bs, but the visas they'd get don't come with a checkbox marked "world's best". Meanwhile, I know plenty of underemployed programmers in the Northeast and West Coast who Google could hire, and have met some of Google's foreigners who aren't as good.
One solution would be for the government to employ a company to compare the applications of Google's H1B hires to their rejected American applicants, and adjust Google's H1B quota on actual need. But I expect the analysis work would be outsourced to India.
I'm all for letting in skilled foreigners. I'd like to require them to post a bond (paid from their US wages) until they leave, after they stay for 5+ years, to encourage them to contribute to more than just their employer's bottom line, when their labor capitalizes on so much other public investment. Or maybe just require they live here year-round, not compete with American labor by subsidizing their costs living elsewhere for part of the year: perhaps just the 2 weeks vacation. But I'm also more interested in prioritizing American labor over foreign labor, when they're equally skilled (including equally able to communicate in English).
What I'm curious about is how you feel about unskilled labor, like Mexican illegal migrant workers. Is it OK for poor Americans to face the same cheap foreign labor competition that richer Americans do from H1Bs?
All that is true. But Google just explained that its profit is too low because of its hiring spree. It's fundamental economics that hiring those people cheaper would have left more revenue intact as profit.
Google hired a lot of people. There are lots of Americans underemployed, or even fully employed elsewhere, who'd like to work for Google, while Google is looking for more H1B workers, who are cheaper. I'd like to see Google prove that it exhausted America's supply of qualified engineers, or even contacted a fraction of them, before trying to get more H1B employees. Who just happen to be cheaper, and fix the problem Google is complaining about in this story.
I know that's how the foreigner employment system works in Europe (or is supposed to). Prove you actually exhausted the domestic labor pool, or made the maximum economically justifiable effort to do so. If Google is really being adequately consistent here, without prioritizing a cheaper labor force - rather just "the best in the world, working in the US" - then perhaps that is the solution to its H1B demands. Prove it needs H1Bs not for convenience or savings, but because the US labor pool has actually been exhausted, before it gets more H1Bs.
Of course both are the same Google - and its not talking out of both sides of its billion-dollar mouth. If Google could hire more H1B workers in its "hiring spree", then it would cost less, and therefore profits on the same (or even somewhat less) revenue would be higher.
Google, like other American corporations, wants to hire H1B "guest workers" because they're cheaper than citizens or fulltime residents. Guest workers subsidize their American work time by spending more time back home in their foreign country, which usually costs less to live in than the US. So they can ask for lower pay than their American competition, who have to live here full time. With our higher cost labor protections, environmental protections, and overall higher quality of life - for most everyone - with its higher cost.
So Google wants to build its brand and infrastructure on the vast, longterm American investment in the Internet and creating most of its indexed content. It wants to tap the PhDs that Americans have invested in producing to make a less-valuable foreigner workforce more productive. And it wants to charge American corporate customers the money with which it pays them, while pitching expensive equity to mostly American investors. All underwritten by foreigner labor, even though there are plenty of Americans available, though at a higher price.
I'm not surprised: that's business. It's also kinda evil.
What are the specs for this material? How many W per m^2 can the paint generate under the 1KW:m^2 of "solar noon"? How many joules does it take to manufacture the coatings, how many joules to apply them from, say, a big "inkjet" printer? How long do they last?
Therefore, what is the total energy budget of this material?
If they have to be replaced frequently, produce low wattage, and cost a lot of energy to produce and deploy, then silicon PV cells that last 35+ years at 15-25% efficiency might still be better, even though the silicon cells cost a lot of energy to produce, deploy, maintain and recycle. Or maybe this tech is better.
I wish every journalist covering the accelerating solar power industry would always answer those basic questions. Otherwise, it's just science fiction dressed up as propaganda.
Slashdot's main problem is how easy it is for some unaccountable Anonymous Coward like you to jump in early in a discussion, post some meaningless denial without anything to back it up, and say something arch to look like you're an authority.
The Fifth Amendment would be overturned by this order, which contains exactly the orders that violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process in retaining our property rights, if it were upheld by a court. Due process requires that a court review any such seizure order, but thie Executive Order discards that requirement. It's just a king seizing property of people the king doesn't like, for any reason (or none). By the time you've got a court to pay attention, the damage has been done. Likely enough damage that you can't muster what it takes to fight the king in a court of law.
And if you can't see that obvious conflict, then you're not an American. Not a democratic/republican/Constitutional American. You're a Republican, at best. Why do you hate America? Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward, is that you?
There are lots of normal people with good reason to be freaked out by this.
Here's a reasonable discussion of this unreasonable Executive Order that has actual Constitutional scholars commenting, not just a bunch of anonymous Slashdotters with more time at a keyboard than any credible sense.
I bet you also say that you've got a gun to protect yourself from government tyranny.
What kind of foolishness says that the Constitution protects our right to having property, but not using it? The kind of foolishness that voted for Bush. That's you, too, right?
Is there any way to calculate how much of that $298 pays for its Windows OS?
Does MS just give them away "free" to companies like Everex/Wal-Mart, just to protect their platform marketshare for selling Windows apps (or reporting marketshare)? Isn't all of that anticompetitive, probably explicitly so under the various (though largely unenforced) monopoly verdict decrees?
Or can you get your MS tax refund if you delete it and send it back? Has anyone pulled that off lately? Or maybe, possibly, convince Wal-Mart to save the expense, and sell a cheaper PC with Linux installed - or nothing installed, but with a Linux LiveCD/netinstaller?
Are you one of the several stupid cunts who challenged me after I stopped reading some worthless thread overrun by Anonymous troll Cowards? It's so easy to lose track: you all look the same.
I'll tell you what. I'll meet you in Madison Square, near the 5th/23rd entrance, at 1PM this Sunday. I'll be the one wearing the red T-shirt and jeans.
If the criminals are watching the same cameras while the cops are watching them, then the cops lose their advantage. The cops' advantage is mostly superior budget, organization, and numbers of personnel. If equal access to these cameras equalizes that, then criminals will succeed more than they would otherwise. At public expense.
There are other, also fairly obvious, consequences. If you try, you can think of them. Only if you're willfully blinding yourself, to the loss of these cameras' utility without some government advantage in accessing them, will you fail to see any.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say Hollywood was Republican. I said Republicans are Hollywood - or, rather, just as Hollywood as are Democrats.
FWIW, Reagan wasn't run out of Hollywood for "his stand against Communism". He was ignored because he turned his tiny, low-talent acting career into presiding over the Screen Actor's Guild, which he promptly turned against in favor of the hateful Hollywood Blacklist, which was part of the McCarthy witchhunts that were some of the worst demonstration of political abuse in the country's history.
You want to argue about logical fallacies, start by leaving out the ones you are creating as straw man fallacies you'd prefer to argue instead of the truth I'm handing you.
And then maybe we can talk about how Hollywood is run not by actors, but by rich studio corporations and their executives. It's the Republican Party that's run by actors.
You are correct. For example, what is the value of Fred Thompson's regular appearances on his TV show? What is the value of, say, Fox News covering Harry Reid favorably for a change when reporting this story that benefits both Fox's bottom line and its political power?
The real issue is equal access by everyone with the interest and competence to both consuming and publishing news stories. That's the most essential role of the Internet. It's one reason I was so encouraged by last night's CNN/YouTube Democratic debates. That event will probably be seen later as a watershed in legitimizing the Internet as a mass medium in the critical path of politics.
And of course that chance for greater freedom is in some conflict with Hollywood's requirements of Reid and his majority Democrats (and of Republicans, when they had the majority). The unfettered use of content in online political presentations and discussions will make politics easier to access, more in the language of the people. But unfettering that content makes Hollywood mad, because they want to charge for it - regardless of our rights to its fair use, traditions of use, necessity of its free flow in our new political media.
This problem is one where the people are in direct conflict with the politicians, and the "Fourth Estate" of the government that is the media. We will have to work carefully, long and hard to make sure we capitalize on at least some of its promise, or we'll be even less free than before.
Reid is getting plenty of money from "Hollywood", as is the rest of the Democratic Party. And this policy is clearly bought and paid for by the content industry.
But is Hollywood "Democrats' biggest cash machine"? No. It's not the biggest source of money to the Democratic Party. I'd like to see some evidence to back up that Republican talking point, before it's promoted on the Slashdot front page.
And are Democrats really the "Hollywood Party"? Schwarzenegger, governor of California, is a Republican - and all Hollywood. Fred Thompson, a favorite of Republicans to run for president next year, is a Republican, a popular TV actor, and all Hollywood. Ronald Reagan, patron saint of the Republican Party, was nothing but Hollywood, after his career as B actor, culminating in roles as California governor, then US president. And of course Hollywood, the ultimate corporate media cash machine, prefers the Republican Party, which represents precisely Hollywood's values: corporate media, rich people, marketing appearance over substance, popularity contests determining power, the lot.
Hollywood is America. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are America. Pretending only Democrats are Hollywood, while Republicans are their real blockbusters, is not really "the American Way". It's the Republican Way. But it's just a made up story, projected on screens across America and the world.
TWC gives fairly cheap/fast cablemodems to some people here in NYC. Like $50:mo for 1Mbps/600Kbps up/down. Not bad, for the US.
But their DNS really sucks. Every connection to the Net requires a slow DNS lookup. And several times a week, sometimes several times a day, DNS goes down, or really slow (>60s per lookup). These botnets aren't the culprit. It's a lame IT staff.
$50:mo is a lot, on top of an additional $50:mo TV charge, plus what they get for "triple play" including phone service. And of course pay-per-view. In a city of 8M people, the large majority of whom subscribe, with really low per-dwelling costs because we're all living in such a small area with complete infrastructure. Oh, and they're a monopoly in a captive market at the center of the global media market.
TWC should pay another $10M more a year to keep their DNS running like a greased snake. Including cleaning up the botnets that attack them, without making such a big deal about a minority of their problem.
I've used a GCC that IBM souped up to generate Cell PPC/SPE/scheduler binaries. I thought the BSC compiler was different, not GCC, but maybe I got them reversed.
I want to see whether the Cell GCC is in the main GCC product, benefiting from the other revisions. And whether its Cell code is being optimized properly for the Cell in new generations, from the same source code (that would work on Cell) that GCC can compile to other targets (if it would work on them), like GCC does for the other targets (and languages). I want to see if "Cell GCC" is evolving along with the rest of GCC.
But you are correct that the GPL allows me to merge other Cell compilers (like the Cell GCC I used) into a "GCC-4.2.1.Cell" that I make and distribute myself. That answer is in fact more on topic to this story than my question.
Does GCC 4.2.1 generate binaries for the Cell uP? Does it have a way to generate the separate PPC/SPE code to run parallel DSPs with the builtin scheduler? Optimized for the Cell? From the same source code that could run on just the PPC (eg. recompile Linux/PPC OpenGL to Cell for SPE rendering)?
And also in 2008, Microsoft sees the "database filesystem", and "perfect speech recognition"! Am I glad 2007 is over, with its gloomy forecasts that Microsoft would just lie about vaporware to keep people buying its increasingly shabby and prematurely obsolete product rehashes.
Wait, it's just a bug in my Windows taskbar calendar?
You didn't hear it from me, either. What you heard from me is that expanding the H1Bs in this country lowers the overall market rate for engineers from which Google hires.
Google is rapidly becoming better at talking a good geek game than actually playing it. Your logical fallacies in responding to my posts have all been self serving. Since American business is built on those priorities, I expect Google will continue to succeed. Best of luck.
No, I got your "point", but you still don't get mine. The PhDs I mentioned have nothing to do with H1Bs, nor did I say they did. I just reeled off a (short) list of how Google is built on all kinds of American investments, including PhDs (whether to foreigners or natives).
The evidence I have that H1Bs cost less than Americans was already stated. I'm certainly not going to bother explaining the obvious reasons why Google would want cheap foreigners to work here rather than overseas, if you can't see that yourself, and you can't catch on to the other logic I so clearly and repeatedly explained in this thread. And if you're going to split "hares" about whether a H1B goes home for 3 weeks a year, or 8 months every 3 years, or invests in buying a home in their cheap foreign country with money they extract from the US while living in a dorm, then you're welcome to the extra competition.
I'm going to end this increasingly repetitive discussion that's doing nothing for me except repeatedly demonstrate how I'm right, and you're offering nothing but logical fallacies. Goodbye.
I guess you missed the part in my post where I said exactly that.
Or the part where I linked to how the prosecutor was fired and disbarred (though it looks like the CNN article to which I linked is now broken).
Anonymous illiterate Coward can't even think straight when they agree with me. Maybe something's jamming the plate in their head, like fevered lust to join the Duke lacrosse team, though they're wedged between a gamer's chair and their keyboard, tied by a gamer's catheter to their mom's basement.
Everyone knows that Duke's got problems with open access. It's the access point's fault, not the new units that play a little rough with seasoned pros.
Though the expert officials blaming the wrong party should find a new line of work. I suggest politics.
The reality is that Google is lobbying Congress, which increases the pool of H1Bs in the labor market from which Google hires many workers. So your individual anecdotal experience (from what, 0.0001% of Silicon Valley corporations?) is meaningless, because it's after the preconditioning of the market.
Besides, with the logic you're strutting in these posts, anyone hiring you isn't looking for the "world's best" applicant.
You really are talking out of your ass. I have hired tech people for over 15 years to work on my projects, in the US and in Canada. There are plenty of US CS graduates and others qualified. There are plenty of them un/underemployed. There are plenty of qualified foreigners, too, and they generally work cheaper. In Canada, which produces far less CS grads, there was no greater need to hire foreigners.
To complete the worthlessness of your obnoxious post, you get exactly wrong my point about PhDs. I never said anything about foreign PhDs. I said PhDs, by default Americans, whose education represents significant public (American) investment. Google's PhD labor cost is subsidized by that American investment. You don't even bother arguing with the point I made that you evidently read right, though you strawman it into some irrelevancy about "foreign PhDs": that Google is indeed saving money by hiring H1Bs, though again, I never said foreign PhDs.
You are the one who is just echoing back the headlines at Slashdot and other oversimplified "news" outlets. There are in fact so many qualified American developers that there are too many without enough work to do here.
You are the one who is laughable. What country are you from? Because it's clear that country didn't get its money's worth educating you. I pity the fool who hires you to use skills like you've flopped around in that post. Though I do relish competing with them.
I'm sure that saving "a few $$" on labor is a concern, because that's exactly what we're discussing in this story: Google blames their labor costs for their low profit.
Where do your stats come from?
Europe isn't a good example for managing all immigration, but it's a pretty good example of how to manage labor markets. You'll probably whip out some stats that compare their unemployment rate of 20% to America's rate of 5%, but America's rate is completely fictional, to make the government look good and ignore millions of un/underemployed. The actual "labor participation rate" in America is something like 100M out of 200M "employables" (not too young/old/ill), or really 50% unemployed - probably about the same as Europe, if not more (especially if counting the military). Plus more Americans are underemployed or working shitty jobs not exploiting their actual labor potential.
Google is using their demand for "world's best" applicants to get more H1Bs, but the visas they'd get don't come with a checkbox marked "world's best". Meanwhile, I know plenty of underemployed programmers in the Northeast and West Coast who Google could hire, and have met some of Google's foreigners who aren't as good.
One solution would be for the government to employ a company to compare the applications of Google's H1B hires to their rejected American applicants, and adjust Google's H1B quota on actual need. But I expect the analysis work would be outsourced to India.
I'm all for letting in skilled foreigners. I'd like to require them to post a bond (paid from their US wages) until they leave, after they stay for 5+ years, to encourage them to contribute to more than just their employer's bottom line, when their labor capitalizes on so much other public investment. Or maybe just require they live here year-round, not compete with American labor by subsidizing their costs living elsewhere for part of the year: perhaps just the 2 weeks vacation. But I'm also more interested in prioritizing American labor over foreign labor, when they're equally skilled (including equally able to communicate in English).
What I'm curious about is how you feel about unskilled labor, like Mexican illegal migrant workers. Is it OK for poor Americans to face the same cheap foreign labor competition that richer Americans do from H1Bs?
All that is true. But Google just explained that its profit is too low because of its hiring spree. It's fundamental economics that hiring those people cheaper would have left more revenue intact as profit.
Google hired a lot of people. There are lots of Americans underemployed, or even fully employed elsewhere, who'd like to work for Google, while Google is looking for more H1B workers, who are cheaper. I'd like to see Google prove that it exhausted America's supply of qualified engineers, or even contacted a fraction of them, before trying to get more H1B employees. Who just happen to be cheaper, and fix the problem Google is complaining about in this story.
I know that's how the foreigner employment system works in Europe (or is supposed to). Prove you actually exhausted the domestic labor pool, or made the maximum economically justifiable effort to do so. If Google is really being adequately consistent here, without prioritizing a cheaper labor force - rather just "the best in the world, working in the US" - then perhaps that is the solution to its H1B demands. Prove it needs H1Bs not for convenience or savings, but because the US labor pool has actually been exhausted, before it gets more H1Bs.
Of course both are the same Google - and its not talking out of both sides of its billion-dollar mouth. If Google could hire more H1B workers in its "hiring spree", then it would cost less, and therefore profits on the same (or even somewhat less) revenue would be higher.
Google, like other American corporations, wants to hire H1B "guest workers" because they're cheaper than citizens or fulltime residents. Guest workers subsidize their American work time by spending more time back home in their foreign country, which usually costs less to live in than the US. So they can ask for lower pay than their American competition, who have to live here full time. With our higher cost labor protections, environmental protections, and overall higher quality of life - for most everyone - with its higher cost.
So Google wants to build its brand and infrastructure on the vast, longterm American investment in the Internet and creating most of its indexed content. It wants to tap the PhDs that Americans have invested in producing to make a less-valuable foreigner workforce more productive. And it wants to charge American corporate customers the money with which it pays them, while pitching expensive equity to mostly American investors. All underwritten by foreigner labor, even though there are plenty of Americans available, though at a higher price.
I'm not surprised: that's business. It's also kinda evil.
What are the specs for this material? How many W per m^2 can the paint generate under the 1KW:m^2 of "solar noon"? How many joules does it take to manufacture the coatings, how many joules to apply them from, say, a big "inkjet" printer? How long do they last?
Therefore, what is the total energy budget of this material?
If they have to be replaced frequently, produce low wattage, and cost a lot of energy to produce and deploy, then silicon PV cells that last 35+ years at 15-25% efficiency might still be better, even though the silicon cells cost a lot of energy to produce, deploy, maintain and recycle. Or maybe this tech is better.
I wish every journalist covering the accelerating solar power industry would always answer those basic questions. Otherwise, it's just science fiction dressed up as propaganda.
Slashdot's main problem is how easy it is for some unaccountable Anonymous Coward like you to jump in early in a discussion, post some meaningless denial without anything to back it up, and say something arch to look like you're an authority.
The Fifth Amendment would be overturned by this order, which contains exactly the orders that violate the Fifth Amendment right to due process in retaining our property rights, if it were upheld by a court. Due process requires that a court review any such seizure order, but thie Executive Order discards that requirement. It's just a king seizing property of people the king doesn't like, for any reason (or none). By the time you've got a court to pay attention, the damage has been done. Likely enough damage that you can't muster what it takes to fight the king in a court of law.
And if you can't see that obvious conflict, then you're not an American. Not a democratic/republican/Constitutional American. You're a Republican, at best. Why do you hate America? Anonymous Dick Cheney Coward, is that you?
There are lots of normal people with good reason to be freaked out by this.
Here's a reasonable discussion of this unreasonable Executive Order that has actual Constitutional scholars commenting, not just a bunch of anonymous Slashdotters with more time at a keyboard than any credible sense.
I bet you also say that you've got a gun to protect yourself from government tyranny.
What kind of foolishness says that the Constitution protects our right to having property, but not using it? The kind of foolishness that voted for Bush. That's you, too, right?
You could have posted a comment with info content, except, you actually want readers to turn off our brains. Because you're a TROLL.
Is there any way to calculate how much of that $298 pays for its Windows OS?
Does MS just give them away "free" to companies like Everex/Wal-Mart, just to protect their platform marketshare for selling Windows apps (or reporting marketshare)? Isn't all of that anticompetitive, probably explicitly so under the various (though largely unenforced) monopoly verdict decrees?
Or can you get your MS tax refund if you delete it and send it back? Has anyone pulled that off lately? Or maybe, possibly, convince Wal-Mart to save the expense, and sell a cheaper PC with Linux installed - or nothing installed, but with a Linux LiveCD/netinstaller?
Chickenshit.
Are you one of the several stupid cunts who challenged me after I stopped reading some worthless thread overrun by Anonymous troll Cowards? It's so easy to lose track: you all look the same.
I'll tell you what. I'll meet you in Madison Square, near the 5th/23rd entrance, at 1PM this Sunday. I'll be the one wearing the red T-shirt and jeans.
I'll gladly hand you your ass. Stupid bitch.
If the criminals are watching the same cameras while the cops are watching them, then the cops lose their advantage. The cops' advantage is mostly superior budget, organization, and numbers of personnel. If equal access to these cameras equalizes that, then criminals will succeed more than they would otherwise. At public expense.
There are other, also fairly obvious, consequences. If you try, you can think of them. Only if you're willfully blinding yourself, to the loss of these cameras' utility without some government advantage in accessing them, will you fail to see any.